2012/9/3 Jouni Valkonen
> hello,
>
> here is interesting and easy concept for perpetual motion machine using
> magnets. Problem: why this is not accepted as perpetual motion machine? I
> do not see anything wrong with this concept, but it clearly produces more
> rotational energy that easily over
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Make him run that for some years and he might be slightly more convincing.
> Superfluid He can rotate for weeks without problem.
Unfortunately, I have way too much experience with these sorts of
things. This is essentially the Takahashi Moto
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Make him run that for some years and he might be slightly more convincing.
>> Superfluid He can rotate for weeks without problem.
>
> Unfortunately, I have way too much experience with
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> the question is could the device generate enough electricity to keep
> the magnets magnetised?
Two years of research has shown me that the magnetic cycle is
conservative. IMO, no.
T
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than refrigerator
> magnet that is doing endless work >against gravity or electron that can orbit
> nucleus without losing it's energy.
In your example no work is performed according
This is an interesting device. It appears that the energy stored by the magnet
at the top in its beginning location is converted into angular energy of motion
of the drum .There is some left over to keep the magnet moving up and down as
well.
There must be a substantial magnetic force between
Technically a massive or a charged object moving in a circular path should
emit radiation, gravitational or electromagnetic.
The gravitational radiation emitted by a planet is extremely small so the
energy loss is not going to affect the orbit dynamic even over enormous
period of times. In certain
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:
> A classical electron should emit a lot of radiation orbiting a so high
> velocity around the nucleus of an atom and should collapse into the nucleus
> in a very short time.
> This doesn't happen and it puzzled the scientists of the ear
Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because it
just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just
assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 kg hand weights
stationary with straight hands in horizontal orientation, then
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>However neodyme magnets are very resilient and I would say that produced
>energy exceeds by far the energy required to make the magnet in the first
>place. I would say by factor of 1000 or more.
Actually, the manufacturing process of NdFe
No quantum mechanics doesn't explain why the electron doesn't emit, it just
states that that is the case for certain fixed orbits.
Some "explanations" invoke the wave nature of the electrons and state that
the orbitals are stationary states similar to standing waves in a pipe.
It is an heuristic ex
On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> What happens is that your muscles are like springs and they are getting
> stretched by the weight. When they are stretched beyond a point the muscle
> pulls back and then relaxes, this over and over again and this oscillatory
> motion
How is this an epicycle?
A biological system is complicated and even if it has to obey the law of
physics, it is not usually a good starting example to introduce basic
physics concepts.
In some cases (teaching physics to biomed students) could be a good idea to
mention examples like this in intro
This stuff is quite misleading.
One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting
position.
So there is no energy gain.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:
> How is this an epicycle?
>
> A biological system is complicated and even if it has to obey
Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their
starting position.
Harry
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset wrote:
> This stuff is quite mi
Has anyone tried to do any arithmetic here?
I mean to even an order of magnitude?
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
> repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
> eventually exceed the ene
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because
> it just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just
> assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 kg hand weights
>
There is interesting thing to note, that the rotation of the wheel is
oscillating. This probably means that the oscillation is chaotic and is
governed by nonlinear dynamics. This also means that system is not freely
rotating, but there are significant friction forces that resist the rotation of
AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
There is interesting thing to note, that the rotation of the wheel is
oscillating. This probably means that the oscillation is chaotic and is
governed by nonlinear dynamics. This also means that system is not freely
According to standard physics, it is impossible to design a magnetic
motor that won't get stuck after a few turns. Therefore, questions
about how much was energy was needed to assemble the device distract
from the real significance of the demonstration. Either this is a hoax
OR the device is really
The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
http://diymagneticmotor.com/
That pretty much rules out the "low friction" argument.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> According to standard physics, it is impossible to design a magnetic
> motor that won't get stuck after
Harry, standard QM does not comment on plausibility of magnetic motors. And for
classical mechanics refrigerator magnets and spiral galaxies are exactly as
impossible constructions as this magnetic motor. It is just that in classical
mechanics work is ill-defined, because classical mechanics jus
[jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
http://diymagneticmotor.com/
That pretty much rules out the "low friction" argument.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012
___
> From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:49 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
>
> The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
>
> http://diymagneticmotor.com/
>
>
07 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
It looks very similar to the device currently under discussion in that it has a
or practical use. They've apologized and removed the Bedini
> stuff. (PESWiki; June 2, 2009)
>
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Goldes
> Co-founder, Chava Energy
> CEO, Aesop Institute
> 301A North Main Street
> Sebastopol, CA 95472
>
> www.chavaenergy.com
> www.aesopinstit
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:
> Technically a massive or a charged object moving in a circular path should
> emit radiation, gravitational or electromagnetic.
>
> The gravitational radiation emitted by a planet is extremely small so the
> energy loss is not going to a
497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
These are not indictments of the device in the video I cited.
Is device in that video, whether
g
707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
These are not indictments of the device in the video I cited.
Is device in
ther with it!
> -Mark Iverson
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgol...@chavaenergy.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:10 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
>
> This is almost certainly the same gro
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> I’d like to note a few observations about the later half of this vid:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
>
> - There are at least 6 places of energy-robbing friction:
>
> o 2 Drum bearings, (don’t see bearings p
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Terry quite clearly stated that permanent magnets do wear down quite fast,
Terry said magnets in opposition degrade. Magnets in attraction will
not degrade over time.
A magnet struck repeatedly by a hammer will degrade due to the
randomiz
Terry, do you know how much it has influence to the speed of misalignment of
dipole structure, if neodymium magnets are cooled into -192°C using liquid
nitrogen? In theory dipole structure should be far more resilient, if magnets
are cooled. Neodymium magnets do retain 87% of their magnetic stre
eptember 04, 2012 4:10 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
>
> This is almost certainly the same group of scammers. They keep changing the
> device and the device is easily faked in a video.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Goldes
> Co-founder, Chava E
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
I wrote:
> But that depends on a narrow definition of work which is the
> acceleration of a mass in the direction of a force.
That is wrong. I should have said "But that depends on a narrow
definition of work which is the
displacement of
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Terry, do you know how much it has influence to the speed of misalignment of
> dipole structure, if neodymium magnets are cooled into -192°C using liquid
> nitrogen?
Yes, I certainly do. I was a part of a group who made a very large
spir
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> Mark, I think that the site what James was citing is an obvious scam site.
>
>
I did not cite the site. I cited the video at the site. Moreover PESN
claims that video was not produced by the scam artists that run the site.
The reason I f
Conservation of energy is a strong theory, so widely confirmed that
questioning it must occur at the fringes, i.e., energy is not
necessarily conserved locally under quantum conditions, but these
variations average out so that it remains conserved at the macroscopic level.
Absent evidence othe
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> If the motor goes through a cycle, energy can oscillate between potential
> and kinetic, but there is no energy gain at any point. If there appears to
> be, long experience indicates that there is some hidden potential energy
> being
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> For example, there is potential energy stored in a "permanent" magnet, in
> the magnetisation.
>
This is one of the quantities that must be entered into the arithmetic I
originally requested of the system cited in the original post.
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> For example, there is potential energy stored in a "permanent" magnet, in the
> magnetisation.
> ...
> The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor will run
> down.
>
This is untrue. There is no such thing as 'potenti
I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring.
Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its
springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say this
is because spring energy is being used up?
Harry
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ja
pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring.
Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its
springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say this
is because spring energy is being used
rate under my test
> condition. Eventually it will cease to move. If it accelerates as in the
> test video then perhaps it is a perpetual motion machine.
>
> Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 1:42 pm
> Subject: R
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what about actually obtaining the
> device in question and running the obvious test: Let it run for a very very
> long time?
>
Easy test would be to construct three identical perpetual motion machines and
s stopped...
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Valkonen [mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK since no arithmetic seems plausib
stored
potential energy that is converted into rotational energy, a form of kinetic
energy.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what about actually
will always eventually stop the device if it is a scam.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Valkonen
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, w
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Enough time and a little friction will always eventually stop the device
> if it is a scam.
>
Removing the battery doesn't hurt, either.
Eric
I wrote:
Removing the battery doesn't hurt, either.
>
Or, on second thought, the rubber band.
Eric
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you multiply the
MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not much BTW).
>On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax w
At 11:46 PM 9/5/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you
multiply the
MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not
much BTW).
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
neodymium magnet is 360 millijoules. That is, it is negligible for all
practical purposes and certainly this field energy is not the source why
permanent mag
forget it Jouni.
Intellectually, the wolf of CoE will always win.
(Why do I waste my time?)
Harry
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
> As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 c
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:05:33 +0300:
Hi,
>Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
>As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
>neodymium magnet is 360 millijoules. That is, it is negligible for all
>pract
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:25 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:05:33 +0300:
> Hi,
> >Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
> >As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
> >neodymium magnet is 360 mi
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there was some discussion about this alleged perpetual motion machine. It
> was elegant, perhaps too elegant, and therefore it is probably a fake.
>
> Evolution of perpetual motion
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
>
>
57 matches
Mail list logo
